SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Kevin W. Messer

Last decided San DiegoJul 2026
Decisions 2,868since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While your judge's overall approval rate on record since 2017 is 49%, recent performance shows a 55% approval rate in the latest reporting period. This sits against a broader office bench range of 37% to 68% for judges with records at the San Diego office. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding the hearing environment, though they do not predict the outcome of your specific hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 49%
Decisions on record 2,868
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Messer San Diego National
Approval rate 55% 58% 58%
Fully favorable 43% — —
Denials 45% — —

Office- and national-level breakdowns of fully favorable vs denial rates aren't currently published by SSA in the per-office disposition data. The judge's own breakdown is the detail we have today.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Messer's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Messer
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY18FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The approval rate for Kevin W. Messer has shown variation over the 2,868 decisions on record since 2017. Following a period of lower approval rates between 2019 and 2020, the trend has seen a gradual recovery. The latest reporting period shows an approval rate of 55%, which is higher than the long-term average. This recent performance reflects the most current data available for this judge.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Messer's bench. Judge-specific preparation guidance requires a corpus of public Appeals Council decisions involving each judge, which we haven't built yet.

  • Bring a clean treating-physician record. Longitudinal primary-care or specialist notes spanning the disability period, with consistent symptom documentation, are typically the strongest evidence at hearing. A single month's records usually aren't enough.
  • Don't rely on consultative exams alone. If your medical evidence is built primarily around a one-time CE finding, expect detailed questioning. Supplement with treating-source statements where possible.
  • Prepare for daily-activity questions. Have honest, specific answers about a typical day. Answers that conflict with the medical record (in either direction) tend to hurt credibility.
  • Expect transferable-skills probing. A vocational expert will usually testify about jobs available to someone with your limitations. Your representative should be prepared to cross-examine.

Hearing scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the San Diego hearing office

Kevin W. Messer's most recent office on record is the San Diego hearing office, as of July 2026. This office serves claimants throughout the region and maintains a bench of 15 judges. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 58%, providing a point of reference for the local hearing environment.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is San Diego

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the San Diego office. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 68% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.

Frequently asked questions